By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - inFAMOUS Second Son’s Retail Version Differences Compared To E3 2013 Trailer

The game DOES look less "gamey" hence it's an improvement to me. The E3 thingy looks like the video from KZ:SF without the post processing, too clean. The pixel count is probably lower in the final built but it's for the better.



Around the Network

Whoa what a downgrade!. The E3 look so much better then teh retail version :(. Can easily tell by the face detail. Looks so bland now. What happen to shadow lighting on their face? lol



pezus said:

InFAMOUS: Second Son Tech Art Lead Jason Connell definitely has a lot to say about the game’s visual technology, its lighting and effects, and he did so on a Q&A event on Facebookand on his personal Twitter.

First of all Connel addressed rumors of a visual downgrade since E3 2013, sparked by gameplay leaked today, mentioning that it was just a change in lighting due to the time of the day (pretty much confirming what Giuseppe wrote earlier today). Considering Connell’s role in the game’s development he’s definitely in the best place to answer that question:

Definitely no visual downgrade of graphics since then! We put that particular area in sunset instead of sunny time of day so that it matches the mood of narrative better.

He also described some of the most interesting effects we can expect to find in the final game:

Funny you mention that… at night, this is what we call ‘light pollution’. During the night time, in large cities… you will see the clouds turn an average light color from the city below. Especially in cities like Seattle…where we have extremely low cloud decks. I tried to put that into the games night time.

Well, when we moved to HDR and Physical Based Lighting… one of the benefits is having the world rendering look and feel like a cameras exposure. So, we just have to make sure that things look good in all time of days…but the system supports it fully.

Called it!



pezus said:

InFAMOUS: Second Son Tech Art Lead Jason Connell definitely has a lot to say about the game’s visual technology, its lighting and effects, and he did so on a Q&A event on Facebookand on his personal Twitter.

First of all Connel addressed rumors of a visual downgrade since E3 2013, sparked by gameplay leaked today, mentioning that it was just a change in lighting due to the time of the day (pretty much confirming what Giuseppe wrote earlier today). Considering Connell’s role in the game’s development he’s definitely in the best place to answer that question:

Definitely no visual downgrade of graphics since then! We put that particular area in sunset instead of sunny time of day so that it matches the mood of narrative better.

He also described some of the most interesting effects we can expect to find in the final game:

Funny you mention that… at night, this is what we call ‘light pollution’. During the night time, in large cities… you will see the clouds turn an average light color from the city below. Especially in cities like Seattle…where we have extremely low cloud decks. I tried to put that into the games night time.

Well, when we moved to HDR and Physical Based Lighting… one of the benefits is having the world rendering look and feel like a cameras exposure. So, we just have to make sure that things look good in all time of days…but the system supports it fully.

He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.  Day time and night time should look exactly the same!



BenVTrigger said:
mutantclown said:
BenVTrigger said:

Really is mixed bag. From an art stand point I think they improved some things for sure. Delsons face for example looks slightly tweaked in a good way in terms of looks but if you zoom in on detail he clearly took a hit technically with less skin texture detail.

Also certain things like shadows took a huge hit. They may have been a little too overpowering in the earlier trailer but now they are nearly non existant.

It looks like Sucker Punch were forced to downgrade the game from a technical point of view but made some pretty great artistic choices to help cover it up.

My biggest issue is the retail version is noticably blurrier.


You deduced all that from a compressed captured video, re-compressed on the interwebs? wow, you're a fucking genius!

Actually yes.

There are significant texture / lighting / and and geometry differences between the two version. The main detail difference that compression woukd affect would be artifacting / overall blur which is why I asked earlier if both are direct feed shots.

Im just wondering who said the March 2014 shots are from the final version of the game ? Last i knew the game isnt out yet. And if the game does in fact look like the March 2014 pics them it wasnt a downgrade cause the E3 trailer is a trailer not a game, therefore the game never looked like that in the first place. Ppl should know by now that the E3 trailers are always better looking tham the games.



Around the Network

the game looks fu#$CKING amazing deal with it, I just saw 20 minutes of the beginning of the game and it looks awesome, period.

DAY ONE BUY NO FREAKING DOUBT ;)


also see this new Playstation video post today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo3okSYoNBw

And to finish today some user was live streaming on the PS4, freaking it look insane even thou the stream wasn't  full HD. 

 

This is no Watchdogs(visual downgrades) and Titanfall(792 p ?) lies.



How about we wait for reviews and find out for ourselves.



Live Q&A on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/infamous



Overall I like the E3 version more (except for the faces, eugh) but it really isn't that much of a big deal. The game still looks great and as long as it plays great too I can't see why a slight visual change from what was shown off from E3 is too much of an issue.



Anyone who watched gameplay videos shouldn't be surprised by this. Sadly this is a result of using nothing but bullshots to promote the game.